Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1887-04-07

sion OF the act, in his apprehension. .
duty; or, il he knew the difference be-
tween right and wrong. it must have
been SO great as to have entirely con-
trolled his will, and to have taken from
him the freedom of moral action.
The test question is:s Had the defend
ant the power to distinguish right from
wrong. and the power to adhere to the
right and avoid the wrong?
l use the word power" in the last
sentence, with reference To the mind as
diseased or not. II the lack of power
to see the quality OF the act rs right or
wrong, or to control the impulse to do
the act, is the result Of disease. the law
regards the person who does the act as
no more legally accountable than
blind man for not seeing, or man
afflicted with st. Vitus' dance for the
jerking Of bis legs and arms. If, how
ever. the lack Of power to see the quality
of the act. was because the man was
blinded by passion caused by words or
blows; or. il the impulse to strike or
shoot was the result of passion to which
the man had given way, he is account
able.
Sane men are differently constituted.
One man will be SO nervous and ex-
citable that what is generally regarded
as slight cause, will throw him into
an nngovernable passion; while far
greater provocation will not ruffle
another man. But both are equally &C.
countable in the eyes of the law; for
the law cannot discriminate between
them; it cannot weigh the excitability
OF different individuals.
II the defendant while suffering from
mental disease, shot his wife, under the
delusiou that 1t was not wrong to do SO.
or if he shot her while he was suffering
from ment.l disease that controlled his
will. and impelled him irresistibly to do
SO, he WAS insane.
II. when the defendant fired the gun.
he knew he had no right to kill his wife.
and could, If he had chosen to do so
have put away the gun before firing it,
he was not insane within the meaning
Of the law.
Ii the defendant knew when he fired
the gun that he had no right to Kill his
wife. and be shot it off with the purpose
Of frightening her; with the intention to
shoot near hear. but not to hit her, but
unfortunately the gun was pointed at
her more directly than he intended, and,
instead of shooting over her. the shot
hit her and she was killed, such would
not be the act Of a man whom the law
would regard as insane.
Ii the defendant was sane when he
came home to supper, and he and his
wife quarrelled, and she struck him and
be became enraged at the blow. and in
his passion ae shot, either intending to
kill her or TO frighten her. no was not in
legal contemplation insane.
1t IS your duty, and not the duty Of
the court, TO pass upon the evidence.
The court has no right To intimate
what your finding upon the evidence
should be-; but it is proper for me 10
call to your attention. what, during this
trial you have observed, that most Of
the evidence adduced by the defendants
counsel To sustain the plea Of insanity.
related to the defendants mental con-
dition after his wife was shot, and while
he was suffering from wounds which
he had inflicted upon himself. and 10
ask you 10 consider whether or not Lis
mental condition after the homicide, if
you should lind there was any mental
arrangement then. was attributable to
his wounds, his weakened condition be-
cause of them. and the mental distress
which would naturally fall upon man
such AS you have observed him to be,
after killing his wife; or. whether his
condition after the homicide was attrib-
utable to insanity which had existed be-
fore that event"